A list of some utterly Asinine and Hideous statements made by the Bradman Fanatics

[Old guy]

A few gems: 1. Tendulkar has the most runs and 100s (well, he has played more) 2. Tendulkar played better bowlers (not only him but others did as well) Sachin has just 16 tests out of a whooping 18o odd against those combinations. Someone like Lara has 30 of his 130 tests against these. If facing better bowling attack is a concern, there are batsmen who have done better than SRT 3. 100 100s = an avg of 100 (really?) 4. Adding all runs from all formats to show he is better test batsman than his peers (:haha:) 5. There is not much difference b/w tendulkar and sobers as all-rounders ( :facepalm: ) 6. Everyone who played in Bradman's time is crap. Richards is crap. in fact everyone else is crap 7. Ten is a better 2nd innings player than Laxman 8. an avg of 50 now = an avg of 100 in the past, implying raja > hammond 9. Moyo record based on hypothetica lsub- league is a stimulation of Bradman 10. caveman = gorillas 11. Bradman 29 100s in 80 innings vs tendulkar's who cares in who cares keep going .... PS RPT :P Lara 12k runs in 130 tests, rpt 92 Ten 15k runs in 180 tests, rpt 83 So if batsmen of "similar caliber", for e.g. Lara or Gavaskar, had played 180 tests or more, they too would have 15k runs if not more ------------> implying more runs and more 100s doesn't equate to automatically being the greatest. If that were the case, Hammond, Sobers, Gavaskar, Border, etc would automatically been declared the greatest. Similarly azhar would have become the greatest ODI player too when he went past Haynes' most number of runs (and when Haynes himself wasn't rated higher than Richards) ....

+100000000

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

yeah if my uncle was a she I would have 2 aunts instead of one

^ thanks for another gem .... based on that^ you wouldn't agree with the below statement too: "if Ten played in Bradman's era, he would have easily averaged 100 too" :P And I guess below is your assumption on Lara: 12k in 130 tests @ 93/test If he played 180 tests, he would still be on 12k :hysterical:

[Malcolm Merlyn]

thats a very interesting way at looking at things ... but heres the list I get from SG for players http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;spanmax2=31+Dec+1949;spanval2=span;template=results;type=batting so only RG Pollock from post 1950 era can get into that lineup. http://stats.espncricinfo.com/ci/engine/stats/index.html?class=1;filter=advanced;orderby=batting_average;qualmin1=1000;qualval1=runs;template=results;type=batting

If u look the no. of batsmen who played in that time and compare it to the no. of bastmen who played since then you will find more people avgd 55 plus in pre 1950s. Tells you that even if you were only good enough in pre 1950s era you can manage to loook legendary in the stats book. Thats not the case in post 1950 era. For me atleast Post 1950s batsmen beat pre 1959s by a long way.For comparison see the avg drop of Walcott and COmpton who played in both eras.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

If you get out of your troll mode and try to talk like a adult I will actually answer that question logically .... unlikely though you will be able to deal with it and resot back to throwing smilies and do hit and run sorties. I can't compete with you on that regard.

Ok, so you started this thread like an adult and not to troll despite the topic being discussed in various threads .... great! Go ahead with your explanation if you think ppl can't figure your response out

Did your aunt stop BCL from playing beyond 130 tests ? :hmmm:

Nah, he is suppose to keep playing because the only way to judge a player is if he has played the most number of tests And thus, in ODIs: Haynes > Richards .... who stopped Richards from playing as many games as Haynes

[Vijay.Sharma]

A few gems: 1. Tendulkar has the most runs and 100s (well, he has played more) 2. Tendulkar played better bowlers (not only him but others did as well) Sachin has just 16 tests out of a whooping 18o odd against those combinations. Someone like Lara has 30 of his 130 tests against these. If facing better bowling attack is a concern, there are batsmen who have done better than SRT 3. 100 100s = an avg of 100 (really?) 4. Adding all runs from all formats to show he is better test batsman than his peers (:haha:) 5. There is not much difference b/w tendulkar and sobers as all-rounders ( :facepalm: ) 6. Everyone who played in Bradman's time is crap. Richards is crap. in fact everyone else is crap 7. Ten is a better 2nd innings player than Laxman 8. an avg of 50 now = an avg of 100 in the past, implying raja > hammond 9. Moyo record based on hypothetica lsub- league is a stimulation of Bradman 10. cavemen = gorillas 11. Bradman 29 100s in 80 innings vs tendulkar's 'who cares' in 'who cares' keep going .... PS RPT :P Lara 12k runs in 130 tests, rpt 92 Ten 15k runs in 180 tests, rpt 83 So if batsmen of "similar caliber", for e.g. Lara or Gavaskar, had played 180 tests or more, they too would have 15k runs if not more ------------> implying more runs and more 100s doesn't equate to automatically being the greatest. If that were the case, Hammond, Sobers, Gavaskar, Border, etc would automatically been declared the greatest. Similarly azhar would have become the greatest ODI player too when he went past Haynes' most number of runs (and when Haynes himself wasn't rated higher than Richards despite having more runs and 100s) ....

Rett, I asked you this on another post too...how did you arrive at those averages in the table you displayed? Are you claiming that those averages you displayed are the averages of those batsmen against those specific bowlers?

[zen]

Rett, I asked you this on another post too...how did you arrive at those averages in the table you displayed? Are you claiming that those averages you displayed are the averages of those batsmen against those specific bowlers?

you hv been asking this since a long time and i said you to fig it out yourself a long time ago .... my position hasn't changed yet but one day I might tell you (if you haven't fig such a simple thing out) :P

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[zen]

That's right and here's what happened the last time we tried this ME: He already averages over 100 against modest bowling. YOU: But Bradman's avg was against the best ME: well then can you show me the equivalents of ( ins a long list of really really great bowlers ) from Bradmans time ? YOU: It is not necessary ME: Yes it is . Now what ? Who told you its the only way to judge ? Can we see these posts ?

A couple of questions: 1. Is Raja > Hammond? 2. If the numbers of tests played is not the only way to judge, can we imply most numbers of runs and 100s are not either? As shown in Gavaskar and Border's cases in tests, and Haynes and Azhar in ODIs

[Malcolm Merlyn]

^ thanks for another gem .... based on that^ you wouldn't agree with the below statement too: "if Ten played in Bradman's era' date= he would have easily averaged 100 too" :P And I guess below is your assumption on Lara: 12k in 130 tests @ 93/test If he played 180 tests, he would still be on 12k :hysterical:

What about a form slump like Ponting and being dropped? Cricket is not played on computers but in the grounds where variables are not stable.

[Malcolm Merlyn]

The only good team Bradman played againist was England.againist whom his avg is 70.Rest were all minnows.In case of Tendulkar if we take the same scenario. Thats Best team plus Minnows=Australia plus Zim plus Ban plus WI avg is 66. Removing WI from that list as Tendulkar played a lot of WI when Ambrose and Walsh and Bishop were there and WI werent a minnow.His avg shoots past 70. Remember among them he played againist Lee Mcgrath Warne Gillespie Mcdermott Hughes Ambrose Walsh Bishop and Streak.All legend to very good to good bowlers.I wonder how many such bowlers did Bradman face. Not difficult to avg 100 in an era when few quality players are around and your one with some real quality.

[Guest BossBhai]

-- Removed on request of the user --

[Old guy]

I do not know because I haven't seen either of them bat. But based on simple cricketing common sense (and having seen what WI bowlers could do ) I would bank on someone who could make a measly 50 against the likes of Marshall ' date=' Ambrose and Walsh in their backyard while opening the batting. ( [b']Now don't start exercising the SG and come up with a list of players who have done this the most no.of times and proclaim that Batsman as the best and start hurling smilies ) No you cannot. And you very well know the reasons. Hundreds simply don't get presented to you just because you have made your attendance in test # N. Ask Ponting. You mention Border ... he is still #4 as far as no.of inngs played is concerned but is nowhere near SRT.

why?

[zen]

What about a form slump like Ponting and being dropped? Cricket is not played on computers but in the grounds where variables are not stable.

really? I thought cricket is played on computers only :(( what's next? when ppl select an AT11, you say 'how can a guy who played in 1970s play with the guy who played in 2010s. Cricket is not played in the mind" :giggle: Coming back to your first question, it's the same as you would select an AT11 or whatever. The point is not what exactly a Lara or a Gavaskar would get but more runs, more 100s, etc don't necessarily equate to someone being greatest. Kapil would have been the best when he got that 434 wkts but he was not. And we can also assume that if Hadlee had played as many games as Kapil, he could have got as many if not more wkts despite there being variables.

[zen]

I do not know because I haven't seen either of them bat. But based on simple cricketing common sense (and having seen what WI bowlers could do ) I would bank on someone who could make a measly 50 against the likes of Marshall , Ambrose and Walsh in their backyard while opening the batting. ( Now don't start exercising the SG and come up with a list of players who have done this the most no.of times and proclaim that Batsman as the best and start hurling smilies ) No you cannot. And you very well know the reasons. Hundreds simply don't get presented to you just because you have made your attendance in test # N. Ask Ponting. You mention Border ... he is still #4 as far as no.of inngs played is concerned but is nowhere near SRT.

I have no problems with you picking Raja over Hammond. The point is how many would agree including Pakistanis. And what the reactions would be if one were to criticize Hammond to show Raja is better (*rett restrains himself from using a smiley*) And based on the same judgment, wouldn't a Waugh be greater than Tendulkar on reputation of doing well against potent attacks? The point was when Gavaskar and Border became the highest runs getters respectively, did they automatically become the greatest? Haynes had more runs and 100s than Richards in ODis, was he considered as the best ODI batsman? .... And it is not just 100s, even 50 don't get presented but still folks hit them and its no secret that if you play more inngs, you will have more of those too

[Malcolm Merlyn]

really? I thought cricket is played on computers only :(( what's next? when ppl select an AT11, you say 'how can a guy who played in 1970s play with the guy who played in 2010s. Cricket is not played in the mind" :giggle:

Let me Break it to you.Before 1950s Asutralian and English teams didnt tour India WI etc.Though these were Test teams.So touring other countries except Australia and England started after 1950s and we have seen how these guys do when they tour the SC.Australia has won 1 series in 32 years and England 1 series in 26 years in India.Thats how competent their batsman are againist spin bowling on turning tracks.None of the pre 1950 batsmen faced this test.

Coming back to your first question, it's the same as you would select an AT11 or whatever. The point is not what exactly a Lara or a Gavaskar would get but more runs, more 100s, etc don't necessarily equate to someone being greatest. Kapil would have been the best when he got that 434 wkts but he was not. And we can also assume that if Hadlee had played as many games as Kapil, he could have got as many if not more wkts despite there being variables.

Let me give you an example Waqar younis has a SR of less than 45 in Tests.Wasim Akram has a SR of 55 around.So by your logic Waqar would have got more wickets than Wasim if he played the same no. of tests.Right? Well Waqar got kicked out of the team and retired. You cannot extrapolate the stats of a player to indicate what he could have done in future,because there are things like loss of form,injuries,dropped from team etc etc etc.

[Sachinism]

This thread is useless without RPT :orderorder:

[zen]

Let me Break it to you.Before 1950s Asutralian and English teams didnt tour India WI etc.Though these were Test teams.So touring other countries except Australia and England started after 1950s and we have seen how these guys do when they tour the SC.Australia has won 1 series in 32 years and England 1 series in 26 years in India.Thats how competent their batsman are againist spin bowling on turning tracks.None of the pre 1950 batsmen faced this test. Let me give you an example Waqar younis has a SR of less than 45 in Tests.Wasim Akram has a SR of 55 around.So by your logic Waqar would have got more wickets than Wasim if he played the same no. of tests.Right? Well Waqar got kicked out of the team and retired. You cannot extrapolate the stats of a player to indicate what he could have done in future,because there are things like loss of form,injuries,dropped from team etc etc etc.

On one hand, you are assuming that Aus and Eng batsmen wouldn't have done well in sub continent conditions based on how the later teams fared despite knowing Ind was a minnow then and not a minnow later on and on the other hand, you are suggesting we cannot 'assume' .... and based on your analysis, are we to assume no batsman from Aus or Eng or whatever hasn't done well in India? If not then again a moot point well, there can be so many examples for pros and cons. I wouldn't use SR to extrapolate because of link .... extrapolating is not only done by extending your retirement date but also if you play more games in a given period. For e.g. Wasim and Waqar played together at 5 tests per year, if they had played more (say 8 tests per year), they could have got more wkts .... and since both have finished their career, their numbers averages for both ups and downs. We know they were both great bowlers. And when we extrapolate, we do that based on the potential too PS coming back to the root question(s): * were gavaskar and border, the greatest at the point of getting the most runs/100s? * in odis: is haynes > richards for getting more runs and 100s than richards?